Hi folks,
Still pursuing my study of academic criticisms of what those people think is "NLP" I've just come across a real doozy.
But before I say anything about it I'd like to conduct a very simple poll to get people's views on the purpose of "NLP".
It seems that the late Virginia Satir once wrote that the NLP technique might be part of the "beginning of the end of people relating to each other through force, dictatorship, obedience and stereotypes ... It is a question of whether the old attitudes will die and new ones be born or that civilisation dies out. I [Virginia Satir] am working on the side of keeping civilsation going with new values about human beings. I hope that now you are, too." (People Making, 1972)
Now I know that we're all jolly nice folk on NLPConnections, and of course we would like as little conflict in the world as possible. But is it "NLP"'s primary function to rid the world of ALL conflict, I wonder?
My question, then, is this:
Do you personally reject all suggestions that conflict has anything to do with "unequal resources, systematic patterns of discrimination and respect, or fundamental antagonisms in social life", preferring instead to define conflict as "something that is a deviation from a world of perfect inner calm and communion between our individual mental models"?
If you think conflicts include both internal and external factors, answer "yes"
If you think conflict is "all in yer mind, man" and that contextual factors are irrelevant, answer "no".
And if you want to add any thoughts of your own, thank you.
Be well
Andy B.
[Read more...]Still pursuing my study of academic criticisms of what those people think is "NLP" I've just come across a real doozy.
But before I say anything about it I'd like to conduct a very simple poll to get people's views on the purpose of "NLP".
It seems that the late Virginia Satir once wrote that the NLP technique might be part of the "beginning of the end of people relating to each other through force, dictatorship, obedience and stereotypes ... It is a question of whether the old attitudes will die and new ones be born or that civilisation dies out. I [Virginia Satir] am working on the side of keeping civilsation going with new values about human beings. I hope that now you are, too." (People Making, 1972)
Now I know that we're all jolly nice folk on NLPConnections, and of course we would like as little conflict in the world as possible. But is it "NLP"'s primary function to rid the world of ALL conflict, I wonder?
My question, then, is this:
Do you personally reject all suggestions that conflict has anything to do with "unequal resources, systematic patterns of discrimination and respect, or fundamental antagonisms in social life", preferring instead to define conflict as "something that is a deviation from a world of perfect inner calm and communion between our individual mental models"?
If you think conflicts include both internal and external factors, answer "yes"
If you think conflict is "all in yer mind, man" and that contextual factors are irrelevant, answer "no".
And if you want to add any thoughts of your own, thank you.
Be well
Andy B.
Source: http://www.nlpconnections.com/forum/14473-looking-world-perfect-inner-calm.html
